501 W. Cesar E. Chavez Blvd.
San Antonio, TX 78207
T: 210.458.3010
Guidelines for Peer Observation of Teaching
Department of Architecture
March 24, 2014 (Revised November 21, 2015)
Preliminary Note: The following guidelines are supplemental to UT System “Guidelines for Faculty Peer
Review of Teaching” and the UTSA Provost’s “Guidelines for Faculty Peer Observation of Teaching. ”These
guidelines pertain to System-mandated peer observations required for inclusion in all tenure and promotion
reports. These guidelines do not pertain to peer observations for purposes of annual merit evaluation and/or the
improvement of teaching outside of the tenure and promotion processes.
The Department of Architecture Peer Observation process is intended to improve teaching and student
learning and should serve primarily as a tool for mentoring and professional development. The peer
observation process should foster a culture of teaching excellence through collegial dialogue. Thus, the
outcome of the faculty peer observation process should be a reflective summary describing any steps
taken or changes made towards the enhancement of teaching and improvement of student learning.
The Peer Observation process will pertain to all course types taught within the Department of
Architecture including studios, seminar, lecture, lecture + labs, online and hybrid courses. The review
process and forms are designed to best measure and provide effective feedback for each kind of
course, distinctly.
Who is Observed / and When?
All tenured and tenure-track faculty are required to have peer observation of teaching prior to
application for tenure and promotion. Documentation of the review process must be included in the
application package (See Documentation below). Non-Tenure Track (NTT) faculty may also be subject
peer observation at the discretion of the Department Chair. Further, it is advised that tenure-track
faculty be reviewed prior to the mandatory third year review process.
Who can serve as a peer observer?
Faculty undergoing observation will work in consultation with the Department Chair to choose their peer
observer. The reviewer should be at equal or higher rank. Reviewers should be chosen so as to provide
the most useful feedback and should have experience with the type of instruction under review. NTT
faculty should be reviewed by tenured or tenure-track faculty.
Review Process:
All reviews will consist of the following:
1. Review of Course Materials (syllabus, project statements, assignments, exams, etc.)
2. Observation (on date agreed to by faculty under observation)
3. PEER OBSERVER report by OBSERVER (Must be submitted with T & P documents)
4. Meeting
5. Post Observation/Meeting FACULTY REPORT (Must be submitted with T & P documents)
1. Review of Course Materials
All peer observations must include a review of course materials prepared for the delivery of the
course. This includes the review of the syllabus for completeness and clarity and an overall
appraisal of the course design as related to curricular intent. Additional materials, such as exams,
project statements, and handouts, should also be reviewed. In addition, the observer and faculty
member may also agree to review previous course preparation and results, including written
student comments, grade distributions, and completed student work. Faculty member being
reviewed will be required to produce a course teaching portfolio or p (See Appendix A for Form)
2. Observation
All peer observation processes will include at least one direct observation session of the course
during a class or class-related events (with the exception of online courses). If in consultation
between observer and faculty member determines the need for more than one observation, no
more than two sessions will be required. Date will be agreed to prior to observation session(s).
For Studios:
Observation will consist of an interview between Peer Observer and students in conjunction with
students completing a focused questionnaire. (See Appendix B for Form) Observer may also
participate in Studio Review (if available) as well.
For Lecture / Seminar Courses:
Observation will occur during any lecture or seminar session. (See Appendix C for Form)
For Lecture + Lab Courses:
Observation will occur during one lecture and one lab session. (See Appendix D for Form)
For Hybrid Courses:
Observation will take place during one or two regularly scheduled (See Appendix E for Form)
3. Report - PEER OBSERVER Written Report
Consists of completed Forms A along with B, C, D, or E depending on type of course under
observation. Also, Form F should be used for an overall evaluation. (See Appendix F for Form)
4. Meeting
After the conclusion of the observation session, the observer and faculty member are required to
meet to discuss the results of the Instructional Materials review and Observation.
5. Post Observation/Meeting - FACULTY REPORT
The peer observation process is completed when the faculty member under observation
completes a Post Observation Narrative (See Appendix G for Form). This document must contain:
Name and signature of Faculty Member and Peer Observer, name and course number of
observed class, dates of pre-observation meeting, observation(s), and post-observation meeting,
and a narrative written by the faculty member describing what the faculty member has learned
from the peer observation process and any plans for improvement or development (See Appendix
F for Form).
Appendix A
Instructional Materials Review - Form
Name (Faculty Member): ________________________________________
Name (Peer Observer): _________________________________________
Course Observed: _____________________________________________ Date(s): ______________
Comments:
Criteria
N/A
Needs
Improv
ement
Good
Excellent
1. Syllabus (overall completeness)
1a. Clarity & Organization
1b. Schedule
1c. Learning Objectives
1d. Grading Schema
2. Project Statement / Assignments
2a. Related to Course Content?
2b. Clarity
3. Handouts and other Resources
3a. Clarity
3b. Completeness
4. Exams / Quizzes
4a. Well designed?
4b. Fair & Appropriate?
General Questions:
5. Instructional materials support
curricular goals of course?
6. Instructional materials suitable
relative to course objectives?
7. How well do evaluation methods
reflect stated course goals?
8. How clearly are performance
standards communicated?
9. Is the grade distribution
appropriate to the level of the
course and the type of student
enrolled?
Other General & Specific Comments / Advice: (please describe):
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix B
Student Focused Evaluation of Studio - Review Form
Name (Faculty Member): ________________________________________
Course: _____________________________________________ Date: ______________
INSTRUCTIONS: This form is intended to provide useful feedback for you instructor to aid in the improvement of their
future studio instruction. This is meant to be a constructive process that is administered by a peer of your instructor who will
use the information you provide to discuss what works and what can be improved, so please be as clear as you can.
Please use the following questions to evaluate your course
Criteria
N/A
Needs
Improv
ement
Comments:
Good
Excellent
1. Studio Environment - Faculty
Management
2. Studio Environment – Collaborative
3. Studio Environment – Physical Quality
4. Quality of Course Design
5. Projects (overall)
5a. Length
5b. Topics
6. Grading (Overall)
6a. Grading (Timely)
6b. Grading (Helpful)
7. Syllabus (Overall)
7a. Clarity
7b. Completeness
7. Use of Studio Time / Productive
8. Preparedness for class
9. Instructor Engagement
10. Project Reviews (Overall)
10a. Structure / Organization
10b. Helpfulness
11. Studio meeting expectations
12. Overall Quality of Studio
Best Aspect of Studio (please describe): __________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Aspect of Studio that needs the Most Improvement (please describe):
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix C
Lecture / Seminar Course Observation Review - Form
Name (Faculty Member): ________________________________________
Name (Peer Observer): _________________________________________
Course Observed: _____________________________________________ Date(s): ______________
Comments:
N/A
Criteria
Presented main ideas clearly
Called for critical thinking of students
Related ideas to students’ prior knowledge
Provided definitions for new terms/concepts
Referred students to other sources
Was prepared for class
Connected content to previous classes
Stated organization / objectives
Used clear, effective transitions with summaries
Used instructional time well
Facilitated students’ active Engagement
Used and responded to questions effectively
Had a good rapport/engagement with students
Was responsive to feedback from students
Treated students with respect
Was confident and enthusiastic
Made adequate eye contact with students
Used clear articulation and pronunciation
Avoided distracting mannerisms and language
Used classroom technology proficiently
Websites, video clips, & other visuals used well
Provided effective outline/handouts
Used appropriate pace of delivery
Projected voice to be easily heard
Needs
Imprvmt
Good
Excellent
Most Effective Strategies (please describe):
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Least Effective Strategies (please describe):
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix D
Lecture + Lab Course Observation Review - Form
Name (Faculty Member): ________________________________________
Name (Peer Observer): _________________________________________
Course Observed: _____________________________________________ Date(s): ______________
Comments:
N/A
Lecture Criteria
Presented main ideas clearly
Called for critical thinking of students
Related ideas to students’ prior knowledge
Provided definitions for new terms/concepts
Referred students to other sources
Was prepared for class
Connected content to previous classes
Stated organization / objectives
Used clear, effective transitions with summaries
Used instructional time well
Facilitated students’ active Engagement
Used and responded to questions effectively
Had a good rapport/engagement with students
Was responsive to feedback from students
Treated students with respect
Was confident and enthusiastic
Made adequate eye contact with students
Used clear articulation and pronunciation
Avoided distracting mannerisms and language
Used classroom technology proficiently
Websites, video clips, & other visuals used well
Provided effective outline/handouts
Used appropriate pace of delivery
Projected voice to be easily heard
Lab Criteria:
Lab
Lab Content (expands on course content)
Lab Materials (clarity)
Lab Materials (well-designed)
Most Effective Strategies (please describe): ________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Needs
Imprvmt
Good
Excellent
Least Effective Strategies (please describe): _______
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Appendix E
Hybrid Course Review - Form
Name (Faculty Member): ________________________________________
Name (Peer Observer): _________________________________________
Course Observed: _____________________________________________ Date(s): ______________
Not yet applicable. Department has no hybrid courses.
Appendix F
OBSERVER - Post Observation Report Summary
Name (Peer Observer): _________________________________________
Name (Faculty Member): ________________________________________
Course Observed: _____________________________________________ Date(s): ______________
Comments:
Quality of instruction (overall):
Strengths and innovations:
Areas for improvement:
Appendix G
FACULTY - Post Observation / Meeting REPORT Form
Name (Faculty Member): ________________________________________
Name (Peer Observer): _________________________________________
Course Observed: _____________________________________________ Date(s): ______________
Meeting Dates (Pre-observation): ___________________ ; (Post-observation): ___________________
Narrative (by the faculty member describing what the faculty member has learned from the peer observation process and
any plans for improvement or development):